The Fatal Flaw in Dispensationalism

William Lefranc said:

Nope. I am not a dispensationalist and I will never be. I don't believe in man-made doctrines tha deny God's word for the sake of men's opinions.

By the way, you are not in any position to tell me what I am or what I am not.

It's time to move on...
View attachment 267655

Click to expand...

Hi William L , and is Eph 3:2 and Eph 1:10 , 1 Cor 9:17 , Col 1:25 , 1 Tim 1:4 and Luke 16: 2 ,3 ,and 4 are all man made up ??

dan p

Dale said:

Guosing: ''As for your point about Christ coming thru Abraham so that all nations can be blessed, that only started with the grace dispensation as Paul revealed in Ephesians ..."


The Doctrine of Grace is not unique to Paul. It is found in the Gospels. Take a look at the opening of the Gospel of John.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
15 (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”) 16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
John 1:14-17 NIV

John tells us plainly that grace "came through Jesus Christ." This is a truth known to the original Apostles.

Click to expand...

You actually took that John passage as meaning the same as Paul's revealing of the mystery that was given only to him in Ephesians 2 and 3? To be clear what you are thinking about John, do you actually believe that, during the 4 Gospels, a Gentile can be saved without being part of Israel? You have to believe that if you hold the above doctrine.

It was by grace that Jesus came, true, but in the 4 Gospels, works, aka the Law of Moses, was always required as part of the Gospel of the Kingdom. And Gentiles cannot be saved independent of Jews during that time.

Don't read into the Bible. When you use John 3:16 for example, it does not mean what many Christians who read Paul into that passage thought it meant, that the Jews are to believe in Jesus's death burial and resurrection ONLY and they will have eternal life.

You should interpret John 3:16 using John 20:31. The Law of Moses was always required for the Jews in the 4 gospels.

Dan Perez said:

Hi William L , and is Eph 3:2 and Eph 1:10 , 1 Cor 9:17 , Col 1:25 , 1 Tim 1:4 and Luke 16: 2 ,3 ,and 4 are all man made up ??

dan p

Click to expand...

Yes, they are all made up. There is no evidence that dispensationalism was taught in the OT (not a word about it) and no one taught dispensationalism in the NT.

As for Luke 16:2-3,

Luke 16:2–3 (NKJV)
2 "So he called him and said to him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your stewardship, for you can no longer be steward.’
3 “Then the steward said within himself, ‘What shall I do? For my master is taking the stewardship away from me. I cannot dig; I am ashamed to beg."

Colossians 1:25 (NKJV)
25 "Of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God which was given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God."

You are majoring in minors. "dispensations' are only found in the old archaic 412 English translation called the kjv. This "dispensations are in reality translated as either "administrations" or "stewardhip."

Switch the noun "dispensation" for "administration" of "stewardship", and find where is this doctrine found in the Bible.

Nouns are not part of the well-known doctrines of the holy scriptures. Seek covenants instead and you will find out the noun covenant is found 284 times in the OT and 34 times in the NT (NKJV).

That should grab your attention if you are a serious student of God's word that in ONLY interested in the truth. In my case, I don't accept man-made doctrines that have been popularized for about 200 years, NOT 2,000 years.

"Study yourself to be approved of God..."

Dan Perez said:

I have many verses tjat shows that Paul's message IS DIFFERENT !!

In Gal 1:12 we read , For I received it NOT from man , NOR was I TAUGHT it BUT by revelation of Jesus Christ !!

Then in Gal 2:7 Paul preached the GOSPEL of THE UNCIRCUMCISION just as mPeter was of CIRCUMCISION !!

Gal 2:8 Peter gospel was to the CIRCUMCISION , which means to the Jews !!

And UNCIRCUMCISION WAS FOR THE GENTILES !!

Here is another one in 1 Cor 15:8 tHAT Paul was born out of due time !!

So WHO WAS BORN IN DUE TIME ??

dan p

Click to expand...

danperez,

1. Galatians 1 is about Paul getting after those who were believing another gospel when there is only one gospel.
All the apostles preached the gospel of the death, burial and resurrection. Verse 1 talks about God the Father raising his son from the dead.
Paul received the understanding by revelation the same thing that the apostles learned from Jesus because he conferred not with flesh and blood because he was called to preach to the heathen.

2. Peter was a disciple before the cross and became an apostle after Jesus ascension.
Peter was in Jesus ministry under the law dispensation under the Kingdom of Heaven and God message Matthew 10:5-7.
Paul was a Jew with Roman citizenship Acts 22:25.
He killed Christians of the Church of God Galatians 1:13-14 thinking he was doing God service ignorantly 1 Timothy 1:13.
He was not under the law dispensation but of the resurrection of Christ for he was one born out of due time 1 Corinthians 15:8. That context was about the death, burial and resurrection 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. The whole chapter is basically about resurrection.

3. Jesus said in Matthew 16:18-19 he would build the church upon the rock which meant Cephas the rock and the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.
Christ would give the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven which is the earthly reign on earth.
Peter and the other 11 disciples will sit upon 12 thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Jesus said it was not for Peter and the disciples to know when the Kingdom of Heaven would come the Father knew Acts 1:6-7.
Peter was the Jewish disciple that preached to the church which was basically Jews because the gentiles never had a covenant.
The mystery of the church; Jews and Gentiles in one body Ephesians 2:14-15. shows the New Covenant ratified at Calvary when the wall of partition was broken down.
Acts 10 shows that the New Covenant didn’t start to manifest till Peter got the vision of the clean and unclean. This was 7-10 years after the Day of Pentecost.
In Acts 2; they received the Holy Spirit which was prophetic from Jesus John 1:33
The immediate context was a prophecy spoken by Joel which will happen from the time of Jacob’s trouble Matthew 24:21 to the Day of the Lord Zechariah 14 Joel 2; Acts 2:16-21.
Peter recognized the signs and understood their earthly calling Acts 3:19-21 through the Abrahamic Covenant Genesis 12-15; and Davidic Covenant 2 Samuel 7:3-16; 1 Chronicles 28:1-7 which concern the land of Israel Matthew 5:5; and the throne of David Ezekiel 37:24.
Even in 1st and 2 Peter has hints of the KoH reign.
Acts 1:6-7 and Ephesians 2:14-15 show that Israel was not given a second chance for the Kingdom of Heaven to Israel.
Israel had already rejected Jesus Matthew 23:37-39 and Jesus pronounced judgement on them in Matthew 24:1-2 which happened in 70 A. D.
Paul didn’t preach this message because he was preaching to the Gentiles.

4. Throughout the early church Israel was trying to figure out the change about many things from Moses law under the New Covenant vs. the law of Moses.
Paul did what he could to win the Jew 1 Corinthians 9:20.
This is why the Book of Hebrews was written.

5. Culturally the Jews and Gentiles are different.
There were things Paul said in all his epistles of which some things were hard to be understood which can be destructive to those who were unlearned and unstable.

6. Peter and all the apostles including Paul preached the gospel of the New Covenant Acts 4:2; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.
None of the apostles preached the KoH message of Israel’s earthly calling including Peter. Can you tell me why?
I’ll stop here for now. Jerry Kelso

jerry kelso said:

Williamlefranc,

1. You are incorrect about Israel’s calling is over with.
2 Genesis 12-15, Matthew 5:5, Samuel 7:13-16; 1 Chronicles 28:1-7; Jeremiah 31:31-34w/Hebrews 8:7-12; Ezekiel 37:16-28; Romans 11:25-29 shows they have an unconditional Covenant condition on when they obey both under the Abrahamic and David covenants. Jerry Kelso

Click to expand...

williamlefranc,

Are you ignoring me on purpose?

jerry kelso said:

danperez,

6. Peter and all the apostles including Paul preached the gospel of the New Covenant Acts 4:2; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.
None of the apostles preached the KoH message of Israel’s earthly calling including Peter. Can you tell me why?
I’ll stop here for now. Jerry Kelso

Click to expand...

The 12 preached that Jesus died and rose again as a sign that he was truly the Son of God.

Peter, for example, never preached in Acts that Jesus died for your sins and rose again for your justification, which was what 1 Cor 15:1-4. Peter used the death of Jesus as murder indictment for the Jews.

Read Acts 2-4 carefully and you will not find 1 Cor 15:1-4 in Peter's preaching.

Guojing said:

The 12 preached that Jesus died and rose again as a sign that he was truly the Son of God.

Peter, for example, never preached in Acts that Jesus died for your sins and rose again for your justification, which was what 1 Cor 15:1-4. Peter used the death of Jesus as murder indictment for the Jews.

Read Acts 2-4 carefully and you will not find 1 Cor 15:1-4 in Peter's preaching.

Click to expand...

guojing,

1. Yes I know Peter had the history of what the Jews did of crucifying the Savior Acts 2:36.

2. Acts 2:38 they were all to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ
for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Under Jesus teachings which were under the law of Moses dispensation Galatians 4:4 they had to believe he was the Messiah and he would forgive them of their sins John 1:31;36; 6:7,68-69.
They were not taught the death, burial, and resurrection to be saved by for they didn’t understand the bread of life and eat his body and drink his blood and this happened at the end of Jesus ministry when he was rejected by the nation Matthew 23:37-39.
Matthew 16:22-23 shows the rebuke of Peter for not savoring the plan of redemption a few days before he was to be crucified.

3. Galatians 3:24; law keepers were justified by faith and the law was their schoolmaster to bring them to Christ.
Justification by faith of the New Covenant is by the work of Christ at the cross.

4. All ages were saved by grace through faith because it took unmerited favor that God would choose to grant salvation to man.
The difference was the revelation by God to men for not all had the same understanding of redemption for it was gradual.

5. Jesus was under the Mosaic law but he had the power to forgive sins Mark 2:1-12.

6. Under the Old Covenant they had to have faith in God being led by the schoolmaster which was the law of Moses.
In Jesus day was the transition they still had the law and were under the law and still had faith and were to have faith in Christ by the spiritual aspect of the KoG Matthew 6:33; Luke 17:20-21 to make entrance into the physical KoH reign for God will not rule with man without a holy heart Matthew 4:17.
After the cross, we are to have faith based on the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

7. Acts 4:2: Being grieved that they taught the people and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead.
Luke 24:45-47 Jesus told them was to preach the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.
Paul preached the same thing thing 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.

8. Just because Peter used a different approach of what happened in the rejection of Christ doesn’t mean he was preaching a different gospel than Paul.
Point 7; Luke 24:44-47 with Acts 4:2 proves they taught justification by faith of the finished work of Christ.
Paul clarified it more just like the mystery of the church which the other apostles and prophets knew as well as in Peter’s vision of the clean and unclean Acts 10 but that doesn’t mean they preached a different gospel. Jerry Kelso

William Lefranc said:

Yes, they are all made up. There is no evidence that dispensationalism was taught in the OT (not a word about it) and no one taught dispensationalism in the NT.

As for Luke 16:2-3,

Luke 16:2–3 (NKJV)
2 "So he called him and said to him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your stewardship, for you can no longer be steward.’
3 “Then the steward said within himself, ‘What shall I do? For my master is taking the stewardship away from me. I cannot dig; I am ashamed to beg."

Colossians 1:25 (NKJV)
25 "Of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God which was given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God."

You are majoring in minors. "dispensations' are only found in the old archaic 412 English translation called the kjv. This "dispensations are in reality translated as either "administrations" or "stewardhip."

Switch the noun "dispensation" for "administration" of "stewardship", and find where is this doctrine found in the Bible.

Nouns are not part of the well-known doctrines of the holy scriptures. Seek covenants instead and you will find out the noun covenant is found 284 times in the OT and 34 times in the NT (NKJV).

That should grab your attention if you are a serious student of God's word that in ONLY interested in the truth. In my case, I don't accept man-made doctrines that have been popularized for about 200 years, NOT 2,000 years.

"Study yourself to be approved of God..."

Click to expand...

Hi and In Luke 16:2 the KJV uses OIKONOMIA / STEWARDSHIP !

There is a Greek word for STEWARDSHIP / OIKONOMOS !!

Also notice that at the end of the verse it uses the Greek word STEWARD /OIKONOMEO and these Greek word are very similar !!

OIKONOMIA is a NOUN !!

The Greek word STEWARD/ OIKONOMEO is a VERB in the Greek PRESENT TENSE , ACTIVE VOICE and an INFINITIVE and the verb means STEWARD IS WHERE THE ACTION IS FOUND !!

The PRESENT TENSE means that this STEWARD has ALWAYS been a steward and the ACTIVE VOICE means that this STEWARD has always been a MANAGER !!

I looked up the KJV , NASB , and the ESV and are are the same translation !!

dan p

Dan Perez said:

Hi and In Luke 16:2 the KJV uses OIKONOMIA / STEWARDSHIP !

There is a Greek word for STEWARDSHIP / OIKONOMOS !!

Also notice that at the end of the verse it uses the Greek word STEWARD /OIKONOMEO and these Greek word are very similar !!

OIKONOMIA is a NOUN !!

The Greek word STEWARD/ OIKONOMEO is a VERB in the Greek PRESENT TENSE , ACTIVE VOICE and an INFINITIVE and the verb means STEWARD IS WHERE THE ACTION IS FOUND !!

The PRESENT TENSE means that this STEWARD has ALWAYS been a steward and the ACTIVE VOICE means that this STEWARD has always been a MANAGER !!

I looked up the KJV , NASB , and the ESV and are are the same translation !!

dan p

Click to expand...

So, what's your point, are you agreeing with me or not?

Dale said:

I still don't know what you mean by "anticipate revelation."

Peter may not have known all these prophecies, or applied them as they should be applied. Perpaps he was too optimistic. The same goes for the other Apostles.

Peter's reaction proves nothing except that he had a few things to learn.

Click to expand...

I gave an example about John 3:16 correct? You mean you have never met any Christian who interprets John 3:16 using 1 Cor 15:1-4?

That means they concluded that Jesus must have been telling Nicodemus and the other Jews that they only need to believe in his death burial and resurrection, and they will have eternal life, and that the Law of Moses need not be kept.

If they do that, they are reading John 3:16 and anticipating revelation.

jerry kelso said:

guojing,

7. Acts 4:2: Being grieved that they taught the people and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead.
Luke 24:45-47 Jesus told them was to preach the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.
Paul preached the same thing thing 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.
Jerry Kelso

Click to expand...

Your understanding here is strange. Just because Peter told the Jews that Jesus rose from the dead is not equivalent to preaching 1 Cor 15:1-4.

Peter used the resurrection as a proof that Jesus was indeed the promised Messiah and Son of God to the Jews. He was not telling the Jews to trust in that work for justification for their sins.

Also, at no point of time did Peter ever told the Jews that they have died to the Law of Moses.

How can these 2 messages be the same?

jerry kelso said:

danperez,

1. Galatians 1 is about Paul getting after those who were believing another gospel when there is only one gospel.
All the apostles preached the gospel of the death, burial and resurrection. Verse 1 talks about God the Father raising his son from the dead.
Paul received the understanding by revelation the same thing that the apostles learned from Jesus because he conferred not with flesh and blood because he was called to preach to the heathen.

2. Peter was a disciple before the cross and became an apostle after Jesus ascension.
Peter was in Jesus ministry under the law dispensation under the Kingdom of Heaven and God message Matthew 10:5-7.
Paul was a Jew with Roman citizenship Acts 22:25.
He killed Christians of the Church of God Galatians 1:13-14 thinking he was doing God service ignorantly 1 Timothy 1:13.
He was not under the law dispensation but of the resurrection of Christ for he was one born out of due time 1 Corinthians 15:8. That context was about the death, burial and resurrection 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. The whole chapter is basically about resurrection.

3. Jesus said in Matthew 16:18-19 he would build the church upon the rock which meant Cephas the rock and the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.
Christ would give the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven which is the earthly reign on earth.
Peter and the other 11 disciples will sit upon 12 thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Jesus said it was not for Peter and the disciples to know when the Kingdom of Heaven would come the Father knew Acts 1:6-7.
Peter was the Jewish disciple that preached to the church which was basically Jews because the gentiles never had a covenant.
The mystery of the church; Jews and Gentiles in one body Ephesians 2:14-15. shows the New Covenant ratified at Calvary when the wall of partition was broken down.
Acts 10 shows that the New Covenant didn’t start to manifest till Peter got the vision of the clean and unclean. This was 7-10 years after the Day of Pentecost.
In Acts 2; they received the Holy Spirit which was prophetic from Jesus John 1:33
The immediate context was a prophecy spoken by Joel which will happen from the time of Jacob’s trouble Matthew 24:21 to the Day of the Lord Zechariah 14 Joel 2; Acts 2:16-21.
Peter recognized the signs and understood their earthly calling Acts 3:19-21 through the Abrahamic Covenant Genesis 12-15; and Davidic Covenant 2 Samuel 7:3-16; 1 Chronicles 28:1-7 which concern the land of Israel Matthew 5:5; and the throne of David Ezekiel 37:24.
Even in 1st and 2 Peter has hints of the KoH reign.
Acts 1:6-7 and Ephesians 2:14-15 show that Israel was not given a second chance for the Kingdom of Heaven to Israel.
Israel had already rejected Jesus Matthew 23:37-39 and Jesus pronounced judgement on them in Matthew 24:1-2 which happened in 70 A. D.
Paul didn’t preach this message because he was preaching to the Gentiles.

4. Throughout the early church Israel was trying to figure out the change about many things from Moses law under the New Covenant vs. the law of Moses.
Paul did what he could to win the Jew 1 Corinthians 9:20.
This is why the Book of Hebrews was written.

5. Culturally the Jews and Gentiles are different.
There were things Paul said in all his epistles of which some things were hard to be understood which can be destructive to those who were unlearned and unstable.

6. Peter and all the apostles including Paul preached the gospel of the New Covenant Acts 4:2; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.
None of the apostles preached the KoH message of Israel’s earthly calling including Peter. Can you tell me why?
I’ll stop here for now. Jerry Kelso

Click to expand...

Hi and in Matt 10:5 to ONLY go to Israel and NOT to go to the GENTILES or to Samaritians BUT go rather to the lost sheep of Israel !!

Verse 7 They are to preach , saying . THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN is at hand and to heal the sick , raise the dead ETC , ETC !!

dan p

Dale said:

Al, I appreciate what you have said about Jesus' kingdom not being a spiritual kingdom and not a physical, geographic kingdom. I agree. However, their are signs in the OT that Israel would be reconstituted as a political kingdom, as it actually has been, against all odds.

The last verse in the Book of Amos:


15 I will plant Israel in their own land,
never again to be uprooted
from the land I have given them,”
says the Lord your God.
Amos 15:9 NIV


Since the end of WWII, this has happened, there is once again an Israel in Palestine. For this prophecy to be fulfilled, they will have to stay there, no matter what armies come against them.

Click to expand...

The political entity of modern Israel is in no way connected to the kingdom of Israel. It's a modern parliamentary theocracy, not a kingdom, that didn't establish itself, as is the romantic story many like to tell of it.

It was established by force by England mainly and the US in cooperation with them during WWI. Europe was eager to rid itself of Jews - and of course, because of Theodore Hertzl's establishment of the Zionist movement and the later illegal activities of Justice Brandais, America was drawn into WWI to help establish Zion. (https://www.amazon.com/Against-Our-Better-Judgment-history-ebook/dp/B00J0LXYLM)

It's funny because one of the first locations discussed for a Jewish homeland was Texas, not Palestine.

The Zionists actually bragged that they had, by encouraging anti-Semitism, manipulated European Jews to flee into Palestine. Pretty sick. Create persecution so that Jews who had had their lives ruined would populate the "homeland" they hadn't previously been interested in. Once emigration had begun, it was a change in policy which led Jewish terrorists to bomb the King David hotel which finally drove out the English.

That prophecy you quote is exactly the sort that the Pharisees clung to regarding the coming Messiah. It is figurative, speaking of the spiritual kingdom that was to be established and which would have no end. These prophecies were misinterpreted by the Pharisees and sadly, by many Christians today. The Pharisees (and many modern day Christians) wanted an earthly king, but such a one was never promised to them.

And what would come of a rebuilding of the temple? Since no animal sacrifice could now atone for sin, what spiritual significance could the temple have?

None. The REAL "third temple" was Jesus. And he was "rebuilt" the day he was resurrected. There won't be yet another third temple and if there were, by man's will, not God's, its use would be of no benefit to anyone.

We now understand Old Testament prophecy because it was fulfilled and the mystery of it, Christ, has been revealed to us. If we go back to physical interpretations, we reject the spiritual meanings they always intended to convey, and thus Christ himself, just as the Pharisees did.

Luke 24:25-27

"25 Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself."

Dale said:

Dan Perez: "It is obvious that dispensationalism is not a strong suit for you !!"

Traditionally, Dispensationalist thinking was unknown to Baptists, Pentecostals, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Quakers and virtually ever other church you've ever heard of. It is not accepted by the non-denominational church that I attend, either.

Click to expand...

That depends, doesn't it, on what it is specifically referred to as "dispensationalist thinking" ... ?
Also, any one of those groups you mention , and any other group, might have members of long standing, and even doctrines or teachings or practices, that include some ......

Dale said:

Jerry Kelso: "As far as the Darby history it is debatable and just muddies up the waters."

Darby is the one who muddied the waters.

Click to expand...

Actually, Darby was a latecomer in dispensational thinking. In his book titled "Dispensationalism Before Darby," William C. Watson conclusively proved that dispensational thinking was widespread during the 1600s and 1700s. And in my book "Ancient Dispensationa Truth," (by James C. Morris - me) I conclusively proved that it goes all the way back to the very beginnings of Christian teaching on eschatology. Both of these books are easily available at amazon.com .

William Lefranc said:

Nope. I am not a dispensationalist and I will never be. I don't believe in man-made doctrines tha deny God's word for the sake of men's opinions.
View attachment 267655

Click to expand...

Is is a "man made doctrine" that in the garden of Eden God related to mankind in a different way than how He related to them afterward?

Is it a "man made doctrine" that God made new laws for mankind after the flood of Noah?

Is it a "man made doctrine" that after God made His promises to Abraham, that his desendants were the children of a promise?

Is it a "man made doctrine" that at the time of Moses, God gave the children of Israel a new law that did not exist before that time?

Is it a "man made doctrine" that since Jesus died, we are no longer under the law?

Is it a "man made doctrine" that a time is coming when God will restore all things?

All of these changes are clearly taught in scripture. people who are called "Dispensationalists" call the period during which each of these changes was in effect a "dispensation," because when the doctrine became widespread, the KJV was the only widely used translation of the Bible. But rgardless of what these periods are called, they clearly exist in the Bible.

It is indeed true that the word rendered "dispensation" in the KJV actually translates as "administration." But whether you say "dispensationalism" or "admnistrationalism" is insignificant. The HARD FACT is that these different periods are CLEARLY set forth in the Bible. And, in order to deny that the ancient nation of Israel will indeed be physically brought back to its ancient homeland, and will there be blessed by God, you have to deny the truthfulness of a very large number of explicit statements of scripture.